NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0171n.06 F iled: Marc h 2, 2009 No. 06-2586 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT United States of Am eric a, P laintif f-App ellee,
v. Da vid A. G owar d, Defendan t-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE E ASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Before: KEITH, MERRITT, GIBBONS, Circuit Jud ges DAMON J. K

EITH , Circuit Judge. This is a n appea l from re -sentenc ing on r emand. A j u r y c o n v i c t e d

D a v i d A
. G o w ar d

( “ G o w a r d ” ) o f

v ar i o u s c o u n t s ar i s i n g f

r o m a dr u g c o n s p i r a c y, incl ud in g c on sp ir a c y

to p os se ss w ithint e nt t o d istri bu te mari jua na , p os se ssi on

wi th a n in te nt t o distr ib u te ma

r ij u an a , d is tr ib u ti o n o f ma r ij u an a , b e in g a f

e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f a f ir e ar m, and embezzlement of U.S. mail by a post al employ ee, pur suant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)( 1) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) (1) a

nd 1709. The jury

acquitted Gow ard of

a g reater possession cha

rg e, and possession of a fir ear

m in further ance of a drug traff icking offe nse, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Afte r d etermining the a

pplicable a dvisory

SentencingGuidelines ra ng e wa s 121-151 months i m p ri s o nment, the district court sente nced G owar d to 110 months i mprisonment. O na p p e a l, Gowar d argues that the district cour t erre d in: (1) imposing a two-l ev el firea

rms enhanc ement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) ; (2) apply ing a two-leve l enhanc ement for obstruction of justice purs ua nt t o § 3C1 .1 ; and

(3 ) ca lc ulatin g his c ri min a l hi sto ry c a te g or y , r e su lti ngin a

n unr e a so na

bleNo. 06-2586

Un ite d S tat es o f A me ric a v . D av id A . G owa rd Pag e 2 sentenc e. For

the reasons set forth be low, we VA CA TE Gowar d’s sentenc e and REMAND for r es en t en ci n g. I. BACKG ROUND A. F actual Gowar d’s conviction and se ntence arise f rom an investig ation conducte d by the B ay Are a Nar cotics Enfor ceme nt Team (“ BA YANET” ). In the summer of 2002, B AYANE T Off icer s Taylor and Mainpr ize went to the residenc e of D an Novak (“N ovak”) based on infor mation they
rec eived a

bout possible marijuana tra fficking . After being questioned by

the offic ers, Nova

k ag ree d to serve a s an informa nt on the marijuana

traff icking operation run by

Armondo Contrera s (“Contre ras” ) and G owar d. Novak infor

med detec tives that Contreras a nd Gowar d arr ang ed for

truck loads of marijuana to be shipped fr om Texas to Mi chig an. On at least two occ asions, Novak a llowed Contrera s to deliver the truc k loads of mar ijuana to Novak’ s place of employ ment in Sagina

w, Michig an. Ac cordingto Novak, Gowa rd wa s prese nt to help unload the marijuana on the sec ond delivery . Novak subseque ntly helped B AYANE T offic ers make controlled buy s of marijuana from Gowa

rd and Contre ras. Following these c ontrolled purcha ses, Novak told off icer s that Contreras a

nd Gowar d
wer e planninganother

delivery of a la rg e truc k load of mar ijuana fr om Texas to Novak’s place of employ ment in Sagina

w. B AYANE T offic ers se t up video surveillance , and on August 14, 2002, observe d a truc k arr iving at Novak’s wor kplace . The off

icer s arr ested Contrer as and a nother c o-No. 06-2586

Un ite d S tat es o f A me ric a v . D av id A . G owa rd Pag e 3 de fe nd ant a s th e y

we re un loa din g br ic ks of mari jua na . G ow ard , w ho wa s e mpl oy e d a s a pa rt
t i m e m a i l c ar

r i e r , w a s ar

r e s t e d w h i l e o nh i s m a i l r o u t e l a t e r t h a td ay. Soo n a ft e r G ow ard ’s arr e st, of fi c e rs ob ta ine d a

se arc h w arr ant f

ro m th e Sa g ina

w C ounty Prosecutor’ s office for Gow ard’ s residenc e in B urt, Michig an. On the sa me day , office rs conducte d a sea

rch of Gowar d’s home and f

ound thirteen pounds of ma rijuana, $60,000 in c ash, fi re arm s, and

ov e r 4 00 pie c e s o f u

nd e liv e re d ma il. Ap pr oximate ly tw o w e e ks late r, on

Au g us t 28 , 2 00 2, fe de ra l a

uth or iti e s is su e d a

wa rr ant f or Go wa rd ’s arr e st. B. Pr ocedural On September

25, 2002, a seve n-count indictment wa s filed ag ainst Gowar d in the United States District Court for the Ea stern District of Michig an. Gowa rd wa s char g ed with (1) c onspiracy

to distribute 1000 kilograms or more of ma rijuana ( 21 U.S.C. § 846); (2) possession of 100 kilogr ams or more of marijuana with intent to dis tribute; (3) distribution of marijuana (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)( 1)); (4) possession of marijuana with intent to dis tribute (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) ); (5) posse ssion of a fire arm duringa drugtraff icking crime ( 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) ); (6) be ing a

felon in possession of fire arms (18 U .S.C. § 922(g) (1)) ; and (7) embezzlement of U.S. mail by a postal employ ee ( 18 U.S.C. § 1709). I n April 2004, a jury

trial convicte d Gowar d of (1) conspirac y to distribute 100 or more but less than 1000 kilogr ams of mar ijuana; (2) distribution of marijuana (on or a bout J uly 12, 2002); (3) posse ssion of marijuana w ith intent to di stribute (on or a bout Aug ust 14, 2002); (4) being a fe lon in possession of firea rms; and (5) e mbezz lement of U.S. mail by a postal employ ee. Thus, the jury

convicted G owar d of a le sser include d conspirac y offe nse than c harg ed, andNo. 06-2586

Un ite d S tat es o f A me ric a v . D av id A . G owa rd Pag e 4 acquitted him of a

possession char g e and the char g e of posse ssion of a fire arm in fur thera nce of a drugtraff icking offe nse. On Dec ember

15, 2004, at Gowa

rd’s fir st sentencing , the district court a g ree d with the jury ’s assessment of

the cr edibility

of the witnesse s conce rning the drugquantities and Gowa rd’s involvement. But, while the jury acquitted Gow ard of

possessing a

firea rm in connec tion with a dr ugof fe ns e , th e dis tr ic t c ourt

e nh anc e d G ow ard ’s sc or e un de r t he Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)( 1), with a 2-le vel incre ase f or possession of a da

ng erous
w e a p o n . T h e c o urtn o t e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t“ i f b o u n d b y Blak e ly , [t he cour

t] likely would not impose the enha

nceme nt in this case beca use of the f

act that the jur

y ’s ac quittal on the 924(c) counted to neg ate by

proof be y ond a re asonable doubt the element of connec tion.” (Sentenc ing Tr. 27, De c. 15, 2004.) I n addition to the acquitted conduc t enhanc ement, the c ourt enha nced Gowar d’s g uideline ra

ng e for obstruction of justice (pur suant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1) – a crime f or which Gowa

rd wa s not charg ed. U lt im a te ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d e te r mi n e d th a t G o w ar d ’ s b a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l w a s tw e n ty
- s ix, that a two-le vel enha

nceme nt would be adde d pursuant to § 2D1.1(b) (1), a nd that another

twolevel enha

nceme nt would be adde d pursuant to § 3C1.1, for a total offense level of thirty . The district court fur

ther de termined that Gow ard’ s criminal history cate g ory was I I I , and that the applicable SentencingGuidelines ra ng e for Gowar d was 121-151 months imprisonment. The court sente nced G owar d to serve 121 months imprisonment, and he f iled a timely

notice of
a pp e a l.No. 06-2586

Un ite d S tat es o f A me ric a v . D av id A . G owa rd Pag e 5 On

a pp e a l to thi s Co ur

t, G ow ard argue d th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d w he n it

de nie d h is motion to s uppress e vidence and that his ca se should be re manded f or re -sentenc ing be cause of the interve ning Supre me Court decision in United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). On J uly 13, 2006, this Court affirmed Gow ard’ s conviction, but vacated his sentence and re manded for r e-se ntencingconsistent with Booke r . Se e Un ite d S tates v . G owa rd , 1 88 F . App ’x 35 5 ( 6th Cir. 2006). On Novembe r 30, 2006, at Gow ard’ s re- sentenc ing, the district court ac knowledg ed that the SentencingGuidelines we re nowadvisory , but determined it nee d not revisit Gowar d’s orig inal g uideline computation. Thus, the cour t relied on its pre-Blak

e ly and Booke r computation. (Sentenc ing T r. 4, 11-12, Nov. 30, 2006.) Gowar d objected to the two- level firea rm enha nceme nt, the two-leve l enhanc ement for obstruction of justice, and the cate g orization of his criminal history . His objections wer e over ruled, a nd the cour

t determined that th e a pp lic a ble Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s r ang e fo r G ow ard wa s unc ha

ng e d. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt , noting that pa

rts of Gowa

rd’s pre -sentenc ing r eport (“ PSR ”) “ might tend to over state his criminal history ,” imposed a se ntence of 110 months imprisonment. (Sentenc ing T r. 29-30, Nov. 30, 20 06 .) Go wa

rd fi le d a tim e ly no tic e of a pp e a l. II. AN AL YSI S A. Standards of

Review We reviewchalleng es to the constitutionality of the district cour

t’s interpre tation and
a pp lic a tio n o f t

he Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s de novo , and i t s fa ct u al fi n d i n gs reg arding enhanc ements for

clea r er ror. United States v. Gate s , 4 61 F .3 d 7 03 , 7 08 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) ; UnitedNo. 06-2586

Un ite d S tat es o f A me ric a v . D av id A . G owa rd Pag e 6 States v. Hazelwood , 398 F.3d 792, 795 ( 6th Cir. 2005). Once the Court establishes that the district court prope rly

calc ulated the Sentenc ing Guidelines, we r eview the sentenc e for
rea sonablene ss. United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220, 259-62 (2005). Where a n appellant f

ails to raise spec ific objec tions before the sentenc ing c ourt, we revie w the sente nce only

for plain e rror . United States v. Bailey , 488 F.3d 363, 367- 68 (6th Cir. 2007). F or this Court to find plain error, the appellant must show (1) a n err or, (2) that is obvious
or c le ar, (3 ) t

hat a ff e c te d d e fe nd ant’ s su

bs tanti a l r ig hts , a

nd (4 ) t hat a ff e c te d th e fa ir

ne ss, integ rity , or public re putation of the judicial proc eeding s. Un ite d S tates v . B os tic , 371 F.3d 865, 873, 876 (6th Cir. 2004). B. Th e Use of Acqu itted Conduct Gowar d argues that the district cour t’s use of the pr eponder ance of the e vidence burden of pr oo f s tand ard

to e nh anc e his se nte nc e ra ng e ba se d o n c on du c t th e jur y dis a vo we d thro ug h it s finding of “not guilty ” is improper, a nd violates his constituti onal rig ht to a trial by jury
. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), a trial court should incre ase the offe nse scor e by two “if a dang erous we apon (inc luding a firea rm) wa s possessed.” U .S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). T he
a pp lic a tio n n ote to t

he Gu ide lin e s e xpla ins that “ the e nh anc e me nt f or we a po n p os se ssi on

re fl e c ts the inc re a se d d ang e r o f v iol e nc e wh e n d ru g tr a ff ic ke rs po sse ss w e a

po ns . T he a dju stm e nt s ho uld be applied if

the wea pon was pre sent, unless it is clearly improbable that the w eapon w as
connec ted with the offe nse.” § 2D 1.1(b)( 1), comment n.3. At Gow ard’ s trial, the jury was pr e se nte d w ithe vid e nc e that a se arc h o f G ow ard ’s ho me tur ne d u p “ se ve n o r e ig ht” g un s ( so me in case s), including an unloade d rifle f ound behind Gowa

rd’s be droom door, which w as theNo. 06-2586

Un ite d S tat es o f A me ric a v . D av id A . G owa rd Pag e 7 subject g un for the 18 U .S.C. § 924(c) off ense. The jury

was a lso presente d with evidence that Gowar d was a

n avid hunter, a

nd that, in separate locations, drug s and ca sh were also found. The jury found the e vidence sufficie nt to convict Gowar d of beinga fe lon in possession of a f irea rm but rejec ted the g overnme nt’s argument that Gowar d used a f irea rm in connec tion with drug traff

icking . I n addition, the rec ord does not re flec t any such testimony

from trial wi tne sse s. Ne ve rt

he le ss, in r e vis iti ngthe iss ue of Go wa rd ’s po sse ssi on

of a fi re arm in further ance of a dr

ug offe nse at sente ncing , the district court de termined the e nhance ment was
war rante d beca

use the c ourt did not “believe that the def endant ha s offe red a

ny cre dible evidenc e of a c lear improbability

of conne ction – or proba bility of non-c onnection [betwee n the g uns Gowar d possessed and dr ug traff icking ].” (SentencingTr. 28, De c. 15, 2004 (r efe renc ed by the court in Sentenc ing T r. 11, Nov. 30, 2006).) As it stands now, the law in this Circuit is t hat at sente ncing , the cour t may disreg ard a jury ’s ver dict of ac quittal in calculating the advisory SentencingGuidelines ra ng e, and e nhance a defe ndant’s off

ense le vel under

the Guidelines ba sed on conduc t underlying of fense s for whic h the def endant wa s acquitted. Un ite d S tates v . W hite , — F
. 3 d — , N o . 0 5
- 6 5 9 6 , 2 0 0 8 WL 5396246, at *3 (6th Cir. Dec . 24, 2008) (e n banc) (“So long as the de fenda nt rec eives a

sentenc e at or be low the statutory

ceiling set by

the jury ’s ver dict, the district court doe s not abridg e the defe ndant’s rig ht to a jury trial by looking to other

fac ts, including a cquitted conduc t, when
se le c tin g a

se nte nc e wi thi n th a t st a tut or y ra ng e .” ); United States v. Me ndez , 498 F.3d 423, 427 (6 th C ir . 2 00 7) (“ a

po st- Bo ok

e r sentenc ing c ourt may

consider e ven ‘a cquitted conduc t’ if it finds fac ts supporting that c onduct by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e”)
. Bu t se e W hite , at *10No. 06-2586

Un ite d S tat es o f A me ric a v . D av id A . G owa rd Pag e 8

Although othe r circ uit courts that have a ddresse d this iss ue have deter mined that the district 1 court’s c onsideration of acquitted conduct in sente nces pa sses constitutional must er in lig ht of the Supreme Court’s 1997 de cision in Un ite d S tates v . W

att s , 519 U.S. 148 (1997), seve ral fe dera l judge s have decr i ed relianc e on W att s as controlling in the outcome of c halleng es to the use of acquitted c onduct under both the Fifth and Six th Amendments. W hite, at * 1 1 (M erri t t , J
. , d i s s en t i n g) (“The majority ’s simple and sing le-minded re liance on W att s as authority

for e nhance ments based on a c qu itt e d c on du c t is ob vio us ly a mis take .” ); se e als o Un ite d Sta te s v . Ca na nia , 532 F.3d 764, 776 (8th Cir. 2008) (Br ight, J., concurr ing) (“r eluctantly” conc urringbeca use of c ircuit prec edent a nd “urg [i ng ]t he Supreme Court to re-e x amin e [ the use of a cquitted conduc t to enhance a sente nce] fo rt hw ith .” Judg e B ri g ht f

ur the r opi ne d th a t “ [p]e rm itt inga jud g e to i mpo se a

se nte nc e tha

t r e fl e c ts conduct the jur

y expressly disavowed throug h a findingof ‘not guilty ’ amounts to more than me re second- g uessing the j ury

– it entirely

trivializ es its principal fa ct-findingfunction. . . . [and] deprives a de fe nd ant of a de qu a te no tic e a s to his or h e r p os sib le se nte nc e .” ); United States v. Me rcado , 474 F.3d 654, 658 ( 9th Cir. 2007) (Fl et cher, J ., dissenting) (“D espite [the] clea r limitation of W

att s’ ho ldi ng , th e ma

jor ity he re a pp lie s W att s t o t h e S i x t h Am en dm en t i s s u e be fo re u s , i gn o ri n g Booke r ’s require ment that the jury ’s v er d ict alone must authorize a de fenda nt’s sentenc e. This application de fi e s lo g ic .” ); Un ite d Sta te s v . F au st , 4 5 6 F. 3 d

1 3 4 2 , 1 3 4 9 (1 1 t h C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( Ba rk et t , J
. , co n cu rr i n g) (“only beca use [he is ] bound by Circuit pr ece dent,” concur ring in the court’s se ntencingdecision and noting that “the holding of W att s , expli citly

disavowed by

the Supreme C o u rt as a matter of Sixth A me ndme nt l aw, ha s n o b e ari ngon [se nte nc e e nh anc e me nts ba se d on ac qu itt e d c on du c t] in light of the Court’s more rece nt and re levant ruling s in Apprendi , Blak e ly , and Booke r .”). See generally U

nited States v. Booke r , 543 U.S. 220, 240 (2005) ( noting that the holdingin W att s has no bear ing on the issue of t he use of acquitted conduct under the Six th Amendment bec ause the re was “ no contention [in W

att s ] t hat the sentence enhanc ement had exceede d the sentenc e author ized by the jury verdic t in violation of the Six th A mendment. The issue . . . simply was not pre sented.” ) (Mer ritt, Martin, Daug htrey , Moore, Cole, a nd Clay , J J ., dissenting) (“the use of a cquitted conduct at sentencingdefie s the Constit ution, our common law her itag e, the Sentenc ing Re form Act, and c ommon sense”)
. Thus, bound by Circuit prec edent, we must find that the trial court 1 did not clear ly

err in enhanc ing G owar d’s sentenc e base d on its determination that the unloaded rifle f ound behind Gowa

rd’s be droom door wa s connec ted to the drugoffe nses for which he wa s convicted. C. Obstruction of Ju sticeNo. 06-2586

Un ite d S tat es o f A me ric a v . D av id A . G owa rd Pag e 9

As noted above , at G o ward’s re- sentenc ing the court a dopted by ref ere nce its orig inal 2 g uideline computation, af ter a cknowledg ing that the SentencingGuidelines we re nowadvisory
. Go wa rd ne xt ar g ue s th a t it

wa s unc on sti tut ion a l f

or the dis tr ic t c ourt

to e nh anc e his SentencingGuidelines ra

ng e for obstruction of justice, a c rime for which he w as not cha

rg ed, based on f

acts e stablished by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. The court e nhance d Gowar d’s g uideline ra

ng e for obstruction of justice, pursua nt to U.S.S .G. § 3C1.1, based on letter s Gowar d sent to his mother and sisters af ter his August, 14, 2002 state arr est, but befor e his Aug ust 29, 2002 fede ral a

rre st. The re levant Guidelines pr ovision calls for a two- level enha nceme nt if “the de fenda

nt willfully obstructed or

impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the cour se of the inve stigation, prosecution or sente ncing of the instant offe nse of conviction.” U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Gowar d contends the le tters did not obstruct, and we re not meant to obstruct justice, a s they wer e wr itten before fede ral involvement, a nd wer e, at most, an
e ff or t to tr y to d e fe nd c ivi l f or fe iture of

his pr op e rt

y . T he g ov e rnme nt a

rgue s th a t “ wh e the r i t
was a fede ral investig ation at that point in tim e or a state investig ation . . . is [ ir]relevant to the spirit of this particular se ction of the guidelines.” At Gow ard’ s first sentenc ing, the district court 2 reje cted his ar g ument and conc luded that af ter Gow ard’ s state ar

rest, fa cts supporting the
e nh anc e me nt w e re pr ov e d b y a pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e . H ow e ve r, the c ourt no te d th a t if i twe re ap p l y i n g Blak

e ly it: would not apply

this enhance ment beca

use of the e x act pr ovision in t he footnote in the Blak

e ly d ecision; that an enha nceme nt of this nature wa s based on e vidence t hat was c lear ly known to the g overnme nt before trial and that could have bee n prese nted to the gra n d jury and included in theNo. 06-2586

Un ite d S tat es o f A me ric a v . D av id A . G owa rd Pag e 10

No ta

bly , the ins tant ma tte r is dist inguis ha ble fr om W

hite and Mende

z on thi s is su e be c a

us e 3 those ca ses dea lt with “ac quitted conduct,” wher eas here, Gowar d’s s entenc e was enhanc ed base d on conduct that was never prese nted to the jury even thoug h it was “c lear ly known” a nd “could have be e n. ” Th e matte r i s a lso dis tin g uis ha ble fr om Bustos in that there , defe ndant was se ntence d afte r enter ing a g uilty plea. Bustos , 186 F. App’ x at 553. Neve rtheless, in lig ht o f t h i s Circuit’s clea r holding pe rmitting judicial fa ct-findingat sentenc ing unde r the prep o n d er an ce of the evidenc e standard, w e ca

nnot find the district court committed clea r er ror. ind ic tme nt b ut w a sn ’t
. An d th e jur y did no t make a

fi nd ingon

thi s enhanc ement itself. (Sentenc ing T r. 28, De c. 15, 2004 (r efe renc ed by the cour t in Sentencing Tr. 11, Nov. 30, 2006) .) Neve rtheless, on re mand the district cour t enhanc ed Gowa

rd’s sente ncing rang e for

obstruction of justice. The lawin this C ircuit, as it now stands, does not pre clude se ntencingcourts fr om finding fac ts using the pr eponder ance of the e vidence standard. See M endez , 498 F.3d at 426 (noting that “this court has r epea

tedly held since Booke r

that sentenc ing c ourts may still find fac ts using the preponde ranc e-of

-the-e vidence standard” ). More over, a s discussed above , this Ci rcuit holds that such judicial fa ct-findingdoes not implicate the Six th Amendment so long as the sente nce me ted out is withi n the leg islatively -mandated ra ng e. W hite , 20 08 WL53 96 24 6, a t *3 ; see also United States v. Bustos , 186 F. App’ x 551, 553 (6th Cir. 2006) (a ffirmingdistrict court’s two-point
e nh anc e me nt u

nd e r U .S. S.G . § 3C1 .1 on jud ic ia l f a c t- fi nd ing ). Thus , b ound by Cir c uit 3 prec edent, we must find that the trial court did not clea rly err in enhanc ing G owar d’s g uideline
se nte nc e ra

ng e fo r o bs tr

uc tio n o f j us tic e , a

c ri me wh ic h th e g ov e rnme nt c ho se no t to pu t befor e a jur

y . D. Reasonableness of Goward’s S entenceNo. 06-2586

Un ite d S tat es o f A me ric a v . D av id A . G owa rd Pag e 11 Gowar d challeng es the proc edura l rea sonablene ss of his sentence . Specifica lly , Gowar d contends the district c ourt posed an unr easona ble sentenc e on him beca use the c ourt did not
e xpre ssl y re sp on d to e a c h o f t

he c ri min a l hi sto ry

g uid e lin e sc or ingargume nts ra ise d in his
se nte nc ingme mor and

um, or art ic ulate why

Go wa rd ’s re latio ns hip wi th h is s on and his po stoffe nse re habilitation did not warrant a lower se ntence . Additionally , Gowar d argues on appe al that the district court c ommitt ed plain er ror in ca lculating his Sentencing Guidelines ra ng e by inc lud ingc on vic tio ns fo r o pe ratin g wh ile imp a ir e d ( OWI ) a nd c on sp ir a c y

to p os se ss c ounte rf

e it
curr ency that took place outside of the re levant ten y ear

period. The points added for the convictions moved Gowa rd fr om criminal history

cate g ory I Ito categ ory

I I I , resulting in a twopoint increa se. At sentenc ing, a

district court is tasked with imposing “ a sente nce suf ficient, but not g reater than ne cessa

ry , to comply

with the purposes” of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)( 2). United States v. Foreman , 436 F.3d 638, 644 n. 1 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Where the district cour t applies advisory g uidelines at sentenc ing, the defe ndant contests the manne r in which the c ourt applied the consulted g uideline, and objec tions are pr operly rese rved, w e re view the se lection of a sentenc e for r easona

bleness. Foreman , 436 F.3d at 644; United States v. W ebb, 40 3 F .3 d 3 73 , 3 83 (6 th Cir. 2005). A sentenc e may be proc edura lly

unrea sonable if the district c ourt failed to c onsider the applica

ble g uidelines rang e, or ne g lects to consider the other f

actor s listed in 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a)
. United States v. Brika , 487 F.3d 450, 462 ( 6th Cir. 2007). Go wa rd ’s se nte nc ingtr ans c ri pt, inc lud inga de ta ile d e xch ang e wi th G ow ard re g ard inghis
c ri min a l hi sto ry , th e c ourt ’s g oa ls o f s e nte nc ing , th e ne e d f or de te rr e nc e , th e so c ie ta l pr ob le msNo. 06-2586

Un ite d S tat es o f A me ric a v . D av id A . G owa rd Pag e 12
cause d by illega l drug s, the observation that the need to inca pacitate Gowar d was “ not a principa l fa c tor he re ,” and

a g re e me nt t

hat G ow ard ’s c ri min a l hi sto ry sc or e may

have be e n “ sli g htl y overstate d” bef

ore imposing Gowar d’s sentenc e, re flec ts the court’s c onsideration of the pertinent § 3553(a ) fa ctors. The court wa s not require d to provide spec ific re asons for r ejec ting “any and all ar g uments by

the par ties for a lternative se ntence s.” United States v. Vonne r , 516 F.3d 382, 387 ( 6th Cir. 2008). Nor wa s the court r equire d to addre ss Gowar d’s post-sentenc ing reha bilitation. United States v. W orley , 453 F.3d 706, 709 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Thus, we find Go wa rd ’s c on te nti on

that th e dis tr ic t c ourt

e rr e d b y no t art ic ulatin g why

Go wa rd ’s re latio ns hip wi th h is s on

and his po st- of

fe ns e re ha

bil itatio n d id n ot w arr ant a low e r s e nte nc e is w ith ou t me ri t. Gowar d conce des that althoug h he cha lleng ed his criminal history scoringin the PSRand in a sentenc ing me morandum filed f or consider ation at his re- sentenc ing, he did not “prese nt the pr e c ise argume nt b e fo re the tr ia l c ourt that he ra ise d o n a

pp e a l c on c e rn ingthe tim ingof his felony conviction.” Ac cording ly , the plain er ror standa rd is the applica

ble standar d of re view. United States v. Gardiner , 463 F.3d 445, 460 ( 6th Cir. 2006). At trial, the g overnme nt’s informant, David Novak, testified that Gow ard ha d been involved with drug traff

icking “since the ea

rly 1990s.” Howe ver, at Gowar d’s orig inal sentenc ing he aring , the cour t noted that it was clea

r “that the jury

did not acce pt the testimony of . . . Mr. Novak c oncer

ning the involvement of Mr. Gow ard,” and that “like the jury , the cour t . . . will rejec t that testimony .” In an exchang e with the cour t at his re-se ntencinghear ing, where Gowar d g ener ally

objected that the criminal history cate g orization overstated his true c riminal past, the cour

t acknowle dg ed that Gowa rd’s c riminal history

might have been ove rstated,No. 06-2586

Un ite d S tat es o f A me ric a v . D av id A . G owa rd Pag e 13 expressly pointing to “the impair ed drivingconviction when [Gowa rd] was 21 y ear s old.” Ho we ve r, the dis tr ic t c ourt did no t make a

sp e c if ic fi nd ingre g ard ingwh e n G ow ard be g an h is criminal ente rprise, nor

did the court state that it chang ed its fee lings towa rd the we ight to be g iven to the trial testimony
. Th e of fe ns e s f or wh ic h th e jur

y c on vic te d G ow ard

oc c ur re d in 20 02 . G ow ard ’s PSR added one point to his criminal history for a May 10, 1991 OWIconviction, and two points for a Marc h 13, 1990 conviction to possess counter feit cur renc y . Thus, both fell outside of the rele vant ten y ear

period. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e )(2) (prior se ntence s within ten y ear s of
commence ment of the instant offe nse ar e counte d in calculation defenda nt’s criminal history

). Ba sed upon ora l argument and a thor oug h revie w of Gow ard’ s sentencingand re

sentenc ing he aringtranscr ipts, we find that the district cour t committed plain error

in adding points to Goward’s se ntence for his OWIand counte rfe it convictions, which clea rly aff ecte d Gowar d’s substantial rig hts by incre asing his criminal history cate g ory and subjec ting him to a highe r sentenc ing r ang e. The district court’s fa ilure to explain it s fac tual deter minations on Gowar d’s prior c onvictions require s us to remand the c ase f or re -sentenc ing. A ccor dingly , we
v ac at e G o wa rd ’s s en t en ce an d re m an d t h e c as e f

o r r e- s en t en ci n g. III . C ON CL USI ON For the fore g oing r easons, we VA CA TE Gowar d’s sentenc e, and REMAND the ca se for
re -s en t en ci n g.No. 06-2586

Un ite d S tat es o f A me ric a v . D av id A . G owa rd Pag e 14 J UL I A SMI TH GI BB ONS, Circuit J udg e, conc urring . Iconcur in the result and make two points. First, beca

use I ag ree with the rea soning of Mende z and joined the major ity

opinion in W hit e , I do no t sh are the ma

jor ity ’s re luc tanc e in f

oll ow ingour c ir c uit

pr e c e de nt. Second, while I

ag ree that we must vac ate Gow ard’ s sentence and re mand for
rese ntencing , Idisag ree with the majority ’s unequivoca l statement that the 1991 OWIconviction and the 1990 possession of c ounterfe it curre ncy conviction fe ll outsi de the r eleva nt ten-y ear period a nd may not be used to ca lculate the c riminal history score . This may

indeed be the ca se, but it is not nece ssarily

so. Count 1 of the amende d superse ding indictment a lleg ed a c onspiracy ending on Dec ember

31, 2002, and beg inning at some unknown time. Be cause Gowar d did not argue in the district cour

t that the convictions wer e outside the ten- y ear period, the district c ourt did no t make any

fa c tua l f ind ing s a bo ut t he be g inn ingdate of

the c on sp ir a c y . F or

the same
re a so n, the g ov e rnme nt f

ound it unn e c e ssa

ry to p oin t to any

e vid e nc e a t tr ia l th a t mi g ht s up po rt a beg inning date within ten y ear s of the 1990 and 1991 c onvictions or to present a ny such evide nce at sentenc ing. T he re mand should permit the district court to dec ide when the conspirac y beg an
so that it c an th e n d e te rm ine wh e the r i ts a wa rd of po int s f or the e arl ie r c on vic tio ns wa s c or re c t.